The Crucifixion, Did Jesus really have to die?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Do you understand what faith is?

Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That is, faith is the substance of things hoped for, it is not the hope or trust itself. It is the evidence or the thing which substantiates the trust/hope. Most people, however, use faith synononmously with blind trust or a thing hopefully desired but not obtained, but that is not what faith is. Faith is the evidence which proves the thing hoped for to be true - it is the hopeful thing shown to be obtained by evidence, and that evidence is called faith.

Faith is then anything hoped for which was substantiated and saving faith is... understand the OP by reading the Bible and praying. He is talking about becoming justified in the spirit.

The only problem I see in the OP is that he is confusing the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of Christ but that is easy to do if you do not see that the Holy Spirit is sent in Christ's name -- it is Christ's spirit /purpose to lead us to Father and it is Christ's spirit that justifies us.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So... OP is very close but I don't think sac fully understands what he is saying, yet. And it goes a lil deeper or should be understood better, imo. But then who to tell? Not dogs and swine, I suppose. Maybe only saints or let God tell the saints?

Hebrews 11:1

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

So have you disproven that Jesus lived? Is it fact?

a reply to: olaru12

There is a good case that Jesus actually didn't die on the cross. In fact it is claimed he lived and had a family and lived in france.

I suppose that these people also have His address? Does sell a lot of books though.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I don't think it matters as much as you think. It is the baptism of the Spirit that is what is important, and that it is real and not counterfeit.

You are right we can have faith in what is known and what is yet to come.

a reply to: Murgatroid

If archeology 'proves' something, I'm going to believe just the opposite.

There yeh go. That is a the best response I have heard yet. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a frog. Good going ole boy. I take it you either bought your degree or got it with some free stuff on affirmative action. A silver star for this guy.

a reply to: sacgamer25

It was the ultimite sin to slay the son of God, the incarnate Emanuel or god incarnate, but he came to save and said "Father forgive them they do not know what they are doing", at his death the ground trembled, the sky went dark, the veil in the temple was rent in two revealing the holy of holy's where God's throne the Ark of the covenant should have been (it was hidden by jeremiah at the time of the babylonian invasion) as empty or meaning that here was no god in israel.

So yes, he came to save, his death was in our place but remember he created life to since he supercedes life he can not be killed, or at least not in the same final way, before life existed he existed and he created life.

Every day we die inside, when we harm other's, when we do wrong, when we turn a blind eye or walk away from the one who is suffering but Christ forgave us asking as a price only that we truly repent and Try our best to be good, if that is not a father I do not know what is, this being so loved the world he gave his only begotten son and he died with him as christ is one with the father which is why he is called almighty father, everlasting king, prince of peace and emanuel or god with us.

He died of the ultimate sin, he forgave them for they knew not what they did, but what of they that know what they do, they are the devil's.

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
I have a been a follower of Jesus since I can remember. What I've learned is:
ARCHEOLOGY PROVES THAT THE THINGS

IN THE BIBLE NEVER HAPPENED

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEL AVIV

TEL AVIV ISRAEL

THE HEADLINE

USA TODAY

ARCHAEOLOGIST TRIES TO RIP OUT JEWISH HISTORY'S BIBLICAL ROOTS

By Matthew Kalman USA TODAY

Quote from Professor Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University

NOTE: Professor Herzogs quotes---Mine in gray

JERUSALEM

"The many Egyptian documents known to us do not make any reference to the sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt or the events of Exodus.

This is coming from a University right in the middle of Israel, and they say that the Egyptian documents dating back ages make no mention of the exodus.

Generations of scholars tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of the tribes of Israel in the desert. Despite all this diligent research, not one site was identified that could correspond to the Biblical picture.

Generations of scholars have not been able to find one site identified in the Bible.

An Israeli archeologist is drawing fire for claiming that the biblical history of the Jewish people is probably fiction.

Consider the courage this archeologist has for saying the truth, right in the middle of Israel.

In an article in Ha'aretz newspaper, Ze'ev Herzog a professor at Tel Aviv University argued that the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt probably never happened, the Ten Commandments were not given on Mt Sinai and Joshua never conquered the land of Israel.

So there are three big Biblical stories that you have read about all your life, that a university in Israel says never happened.

Herzog says there is no evidence that Joshua led the children of Israel into the Holy Land or brought down the walls of Jericho.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions have only yielded disappointments he says.

During the period when the conquest would have taken place, there were no cities there and of course no walls to bring down.

Consider that.

Joshua could not have knocked down the walls of Jericho because there was no Jericho there at the time, and no walls.

Herzog has been criticized by religious leaders and is surprised at the criticism.

I don't think it is right to guess at motives based on the results of scientific inquiry he says. Archaeology has always been used in this society and used to point in one direction, (to prove the Bible), now I'm suggesting that perhaps it should be used to point in another direction.

What professor Herzog says here is that archeology can also be used to prove that the things in the Bible never happened.

They are symbolic, just as the Bible says.

Atheists and disbeliever's come onto the religious thread's but mostly the christian one's and sit there and make grandiose statement founding in biased and biggoted opinions that are self serving, then they star one another.

We know you are there, we know you do not want to believe as it scares the hell out of you that you might one day have to answer for the wrong's you have done and feel free thinking there is no god but in the word's of christ "Those who say there is no god are foolish", and that is from the very being who warned us to call no man a fool.

What kick do the get out of trying to drag people out of there faith, to push them into a bleak world where they will feel no one can help them not even themselves and are less inclined to help one another.

Where there is an alter there you will find civilization, So what kind of civilization would atheists build, the pyramid's were constructed with primitive tool's by people who whole heartedly believed in something, they may not have been correct but at least they were not souless machines with empty heart's and driven by greed, lust and vindictive hatred of they who do believe.

Hypocrite's.


By the way there are two school's of archeaology, one that is trying to disprove and one that is trying to prove, the bible is a matter of faith but what of Ron wyatte and his solomon era pillar's on both sides of the red sea, the one of the egyptian side though eroded had four readable inscriptionsi in pheonician.

Oh that is right he was a religious guy so his opinion did not count www.arkdiscovery.com...
You know he is far from alone, but a hard core of atheists have taken over this profession over time and there secular view's are totally crap, they teach there own personal opinion's as though they were actual fact, biased and hypocritical abuse of position.

And also remember the like's of herzog have a vested interest in seeing a religon that they find offencive and consider blasphemous disproven so will even make up or interpret proof with that biased intention.

I actually think Wyatt's mount sinai is the real one but have a look at Har Karkoum and remember the tribe's of Israel wandered for decade's as god toughened them us and made a tainted generation pass away.
www.harkarkom.com...

You really have no idea how much proof there really IS for the bible.

I have never liked the line that Joshua (Jesus) died for our sins, it smells of human sacrifice to appease the Gods. If anything the crucifixion showed that we must always look towards God no matter what the consequences because nothing is more important, even death. However, I like to think that Joshua (Jesus) entered a deep state of samadhi on the cross so onlookers could not tell if he was dead or alive, on recovery, he traveled to India where he died of old age (80+) in Kashmir, India. His footprints recorded with crucifixion scars on both feet to tell the tale.

Did Jesus really have to die?

I was recently blown away when I came across something called the “Laminin Phenomena”.

Hmmm... a CROSS-SHAPED cell that holds us together and just so happens to be one of the most important cells we have.

A coincidence? I think not!

“The laminin protein molecule is the major component that makes up the extracellular matrix which is also called the basement membrane. These are the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs. Laminin assist in cell adhesion and binds other extracellular matrix components together.” The word ‘matrix’ traces back to the Hebrew word ‘ema’ which means mother and comes from the root word ‘em’ which means ‘glue’. Matrix is also etymologically connected to the word ‘madrigal.’ littleguyintheeye.wordpress.com...

When I got to the section in your response " the pyramid's were constructed with primitive tool's by people " I couldn't bear reading anymore..You are waay behind in the times..please do some catching up. reply to: LABTECH767

originally posted by: glend
I have never liked the line that Joshua (Jesus) died for our sins, it smells of human sacrifice to appease the Gods. If anything the crucifixion showed that we must always look towards God no matter what the consequences because nothing is more important, even death. However, I like to think that Joshua (Jesus) entered a deep state of samadhi on the cross so onlookers could not tell if he was dead or alive, on recovery, he traveled to India where he died of old age (80+) in Kashmir, India. His footprints recorded with crucifixion scars on both feet to tell the tale.

S&F OP

That's quite the amusing picture.... So Jesus had Fred Flintstone feet did he?

Just so you know, they didn't put the stake through his feet... It went through his heel...

We have evidence of a man that was crucified from the first century... so we know how it was done

hands over his head... nailed to the sides of a "stake" not a "cross"

a reply to: sacgamer25

The idea that Jesus "had to" die came from Paul...

He was still stuck in OT mode... Obviously because he was a Pharisee, he just couldn't shake the idea that God wants blood sacrifice...

Jesus himself clarified that for us... Christians call him God... So lets consider this straight from "god's" mouth

I want mercy NOT sacrifice... the sacrifice Jesus talked about comes from within...

God doesn't want blood...Never did

He wants his children to love one another

One can not place his/her sins on another being... ONLY you are responsible for your own sins

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: sacgamer25

The idea that Jesus "had to" die came from Paul...

He was still stuck in OT mode... Obviously because he was a Pharisee, he just couldn't shake the idea that God wants blood sacrifice...

Jesus himself clarified that for us... Christians call him God... So lets consider this straight from "god's" mouth

I want mercy NOT sacrifice... the sacrifice Jesus talked about comes from within...

God doesn't want blood...Never did

He wants his children to love one another

One can not place his/her sins on another being... ONLY you are responsible for your own sins

Did you ever consider this is what Jesus Christ wanted to do? Thier is no greater love than to give your life for your brothers.

The call from the cross is to give your life to humanity. Stop living for the human and start living for humanity.

Is this even possible? By what spirit did JFK and MLK take on the world, and lay down their life for humanity? These were men more concerned with humanity than the human.

By their faith, which is evident by their works, they gave their lives for humanity.

I think this is the purpose. To give us the courage to stand up against the beast, and give our lives for the sake of our brothers.

The only sad thing is most of the world lives for the human and never has the courage to fight for humanity.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Atheists and disbeliever's come onto the religious thread's but mostly the christian one's and sit there and make grandiose statement founding in biased and biggoted opinions that are self serving, then they star one another.

That's a fallacy, most religious threads ARE Christian threads. Disbelievers don't really have much of a chance to go into other religious threads and discredit them because they are few and far between.

We know you are there, ... and that is from the very being who warned us to call no man a fool.

Yes, that is it. We don't want to believe in god because we are evil at heart and if it were true then we'd go to hell. That's some passive aggressive condensation you got going on there. I mean it's not like we couldn't POSSIBLY disbelieve because there is no evidence for your mythology, nah we are all secret believers and just secretly fear the fires of hell (that doesn't exist in the bible).

What kick do the get out of trying to drag people out of there faith, to push them into a bleak world where they will feel no one can help them not even themselves and are less inclined to help one another.

It's called education, if the truth is dirty and scary does that mean it shouldn't be shared? Or is it ok for everyone to continue to believe in Santa Clause because it makes everyone feel good? If you view the world without Christianity as what you described, that's on you. It sounds more like YOU have a fear that you may be wrong more than the disbelievers have a fear of being wrong. I'm an agnostic who feels that Christianity is the furtherest thing from absolute truth that you could get and don't believe as above.

Maybe you should reanalyze your insecurities, not to mention stop turning your troubles over to some spirit in the sky. Take responsibility for things and the world stops looking so bleak and terrifying, but doing so would be anti-Christian. It's much easier to sit back and whine that the world is full of evil and there is nothing that can be done but sit back and wait for the world's judgment, which would be infinitely worse than what we have on earth here for everyone involved. So why you'd wish for such an event is beyond me.

Where there is an alter there you will find civilization, ... of they who do believe.

So religion is the ONLY purpose of humans that's worth mentioning, even if it is incorrect?

Hypocrite's.

Says the guy whose religion tells him not to judge others and is doing that very thing with this post with some very nasty descriptions (souless machines with empty heart's and driven by greed, lust, and vindictive hatred of they who do believer). Apparently according to you, the non-religious stop being social creatures and only care about themselves, which is odd because even science disagrees with you on that statement. Humans don't need religion to be nice and helpful to one another. It is one of our evolutionary advantages that helped our species survive for so long. Religion came along later and claimed that territory as its own.

By the way there are two school's of archeaology, ... inscriptionsi in pheonician.

No that is incorrect. As far as above there are real archaeologists and fake ones. The real ones follow the evidence and use it to paint a picture of how past life on the planet behaved, which may or may not include Christianity being real. The fake ones start with a confirmation bias, Christianity is real, and then try to find evidence to prove that true. They are fake because that isn't real science. It isn't a different way to approach archeology. It is just BAD science.

Oh that is right he was a religious guy so his opinion did not count

Um... You do realize that not only do non-Christians shun that lunatic, but Christians as well? Here is a link about Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt

His work was typically rejected by mainstream archaeology and Christians alike, the bulk of his support coming from the more extreme fringes of evangelical Christianity.

Wyatt's work is best characterized as being highly interpretive and suffering from a deficit of evidence. A schism developed after his death in which the ownership of his records fell in to dispute. This led to some of his records being difficult to locate.

Answers in Genesis (AIG) provides an appraisal of Wyatt's remarkable good fortune in discovering so many artifacts and sites of the bible:

“”Are the claims true? If they are, such a staggeringly impressive list would mean that Ron Wyatt had been almost as miraculously assisted by God as the patriarch Moses. If, however, a careful examination of just one or two of these claims reveals them to be false, fanciful or fraudulent, the ‘divine leading’ option evaporates, and it is clear that Christians are being seriously misled.[1]

This may be one of those odd occasions in which AIG is correct, since the alternative is to accept that Wyatt, an amateur archaeologist, did the archaeological equivalent of developing General Relativity, Gravitational Theory, and after a break for lunch went on to develop the Theory of Evolution.

Wyatt's work is typically cited by fundamentalists as proof that events in the Bible actually occurred, but even this is only attempted by the terminally ignorant or stupid. When AIG shies away from something, it's a pretty good indicator that it's broken on through to the other side of crazy.

Apparently he's too fringe for even AiG to sign onto his craziness.

You know he is far from alone, ... hypocritical abuse of position.

This is pure nonsense. Science isn't led by belief. It is led by evidence. If the evidence contradicts Christianity or whatever religion of the day, then so be it. Tough luck for Christianity.

And also remember the like's of herzog have a vested interest in seeing a religon that they find offencive and consider blasphemous disproven so will even make up or interpret proof with that biased intention.

It's funny you mention this since that describes Christian scientists to a T.

I actually think Wyatt's mount sinai is the real one but have a look at Har Karkoum and remember the tribe's of Israel wandered for decade's as god toughened them us and made a tainted generation pass away.
www.harkarkom.com...

Not likely. The odds of millions of people traveling through the desert for 40 years living off of the sparse vegetation, water, and wildlife is so outstandingly insane that it is hard that people even believe this story is true. Though it doesn't help that there is literally no evidence of this large migration of people in the geologic and archaeological records so there's that too.

You really have no idea how much proof there really IS for the bible.

Really? Where? Science is showing more and more that the bible is just a collection of embellished stories and that the Abrahamic religions' (that means not just Christianity) account of spirituality and god are incorrect. Something tells me that your "proof" is all forgeries or some evidence that is purposely interpreted towards a Christian slant due to confirmation bias.

P.S. I snipped out some text from some of your responses to make mine fit.

At best all we can say is HE said so if we want to be with his father after we die.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Did you ever consider this is what Jesus Christ wanted to do?

Once upon a time I considered such things... but the gospels show otherwise...

Jesus was terrified the night he was arrested... so much so that it is written that he sweated blood...

He did not want to die... He even asked the Father to "take this cup from me", but in the end submitted to HIS will

So no... He did not want to die for man... but it was necessary because without dying he could not return to show his followers life exists after death

let's remember that the "bible" wasn't even started until close to a century after "Jesus" was killed. and many of the books in it were written centuries later. plus, there are over 50 books of the bible that have been deliberately left out of the modern day version. there have been many subtle and not-too-subtle interpretive versions of the actual written words.

a reply to: Akragon

Its a carved rendering, not dinosaur tracks. Yes Romans did crucifixions through the heel but it is also known that they practiced many different forms of crucifixion, so nothing is certain on Joshua (Jesus) crucifixion, only speculation. There are documents that suggest Joshua (Jesus) was in India and may even have linked up with Thomas when he went India in 62AD.

The Bhavishya Mahapurana, one of the eighteen major Hindu texts, is believed to originate from 115AD. If this date is accurate, it dates to a similar time as the Gospels that make up the New Testament. The text begins with the King Shalivahan, also known as Gautamiputra Satakarni, coming across an auspicious man in Laddakh in Kashmir, dressed in white with fair skin. King Shalivahan’s reign was from 78 to 102AD. When asked by the King who he was the man replies: ‘I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.’

link

So if Joshua did survive the resurrection his helpers would need get to him as soon as possible to help him revive which explains why the tomb was open and his body missing. (Codex Sinaiticus Mark). Then he could have traveled to India to escape further prosecution.

All speculation but I am sure stranger things have happened this world. And after a hard day at the office he definitely deserved a holiday!

a reply to: jimmyx

I AGREE!

Gettin chilly in hell now.

It amazing how there are no details about Jesus going to a God mode Zombie after being resurrected like the phoenix.

And yes...He did.

Cause that the only excuse that I hear to believe in Jesus.

He died for my idiocy.